Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Rivkin · 23rd September 2006, 05:55 PM

Gentlemen,

I am yet to receive the book, but I am well aware of the ideology behind CAIS and Professor Farrokh; I also have read Manoucher's posts for quite a while, so I know his opinion as well.
You see, there are two fundamentally different views on Persian history - one is that Persia is an ancient country that united Aryan people based on a common heritage and culture. Its Persian army is a direct descendant of traditions and ideas of Achaemenid Empire; it was a creation of Persian genius. The historical territory of Iranian people is that which was settled by Arian people (which includes Mongolia and Ukraine), or at least the one which was controlled by Achaemenids.
I think this theory is supported by CAIS and others. This is also the official opinion of IRI.
There is an element of truth here - the influence of Persian language and culture was extremely powerful, especially in neighboring and vassal states. Persian military of Achaemenid time was dominated by Persians and obviusly enormously influential as well.
However in my opinion there are a few problems - first of all, Persians can not remotely understand any of those Aryan people - no Osethians, no Scythians, no Armenians, no Kurds, no anyone else. All of these nations always had their own culture and history, and persian influence was quite comparable to that of English language and American movies today - powerful, but does not make an American out of an Afghani.

Another theory is that Persia was always a colonial empire. Its army even during Achaemenids was composed of dozens of nations, from Indians and Arabs to Scythian and Greek mercenaries. Each unit came with its own weaponry and its own language, but was given a Persian commander and a Persian flag. Over time the military influence of Persians decreased to the point when under Safavids there were virtually no persians in the army - turks, kurds, later georgians and circassians formed the bulk of the army. Btw as far as I remember (I can be wrong - long time since I read it, so I am sorry if I am wrong) Manaqib al Turk is not a treatise on Khorasanian cavalry and its crooked scabbards - its a work on Turks from Central Asia (including Khorasan) with their weapons - curved turkish sabres. Persians remained in control of the beurocracy; religion was controlled by "arabs" (sayeds), finance went to armenians and so on and so on. Again, each of these army units came with their language, this time - with their own commanders, with their weaponry and with their tactics.
Some of these nations were more loyal to the Persian Throne, some were less loyal. Kartli and Kacheti rebelled every 50 years; Afghani tribes where constantly attempting to dominate the region; turkish tribes of Kizil-bash confederation, Afshar and others where involved in endless bitter war for the Throne of Shahanshah. Even Persian history changed to the point that Jamshid and his son Tur would be believed to be fathers of all Turks (as in Pan-Turanism - in fact invention of Persian court poerts and philosophers) - see Minorsky and his works on Iran and Caucasica.

This opinion exists outside or Iran; those who voiced it inside Iran were jailed, killed and tortured (Chehregani).
In short - I support the second opinion, I strongly believe Manoucher (If I am wrong, I will personally apologize before him and his supporters), Farrokh and others support the first. There is no shame in disagreement, but I think the community should read Manoucher's book, just as everything written by me, knowing that there is a fundamental split in opinions and two rather opposite views on Persian military and Persian history.

Finally - I am no expert on Persia or weapons, so treat everything I say with a pound of salt

.

23rd September 2006, 05:55 PM	#8
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Gentlemen, I am yet to receive the book, but I am well aware of the ideology behind CAIS and Professor Farrokh; I also have read Manoucher's posts for quite a while, so I know his opinion as well. You see, there are two fundamentally different views on Persian history - one is that Persia is an ancient country that united Aryan people based on a common heritage and culture. Its Persian army is a direct descendant of traditions and ideas of Achaemenid Empire; it was a creation of Persian genius. The historical territory of Iranian people is that which was settled by Arian people (which includes Mongolia and Ukraine), or at least the one which was controlled by Achaemenids. I think this theory is supported by CAIS and others. This is also the official opinion of IRI. There is an element of truth here - the influence of Persian language and culture was extremely powerful, especially in neighboring and vassal states. Persian military of Achaemenid time was dominated by Persians and obviusly enormously influential as well. However in my opinion there are a few problems - first of all, Persians can not remotely understand any of those Aryan people - no Osethians, no Scythians, no Armenians, no Kurds, no anyone else. All of these nations always had their own culture and history, and persian influence was quite comparable to that of English language and American movies today - powerful, but does not make an American out of an Afghani. Another theory is that Persia was always a colonial empire. Its army even during Achaemenids was composed of dozens of nations, from Indians and Arabs to Scythian and Greek mercenaries. Each unit came with its own weaponry and its own language, but was given a Persian commander and a Persian flag. Over time the military influence of Persians decreased to the point when under Safavids there were virtually no persians in the army - turks, kurds, later georgians and circassians formed the bulk of the army. Btw as far as I remember (I can be wrong - long time since I read it, so I am sorry if I am wrong) Manaqib al Turk is not a treatise on Khorasanian cavalry and its crooked scabbards - its a work on Turks from Central Asia (including Khorasan) with their weapons - curved turkish sabres. Persians remained in control of the beurocracy; religion was controlled by "arabs" (sayeds), finance went to armenians and so on and so on. Again, each of these army units came with their language, this time - with their own commanders, with their weaponry and with their tactics. Some of these nations were more loyal to the Persian Throne, some were less loyal. Kartli and Kacheti rebelled every 50 years; Afghani tribes where constantly attempting to dominate the region; turkish tribes of Kizil-bash confederation, Afshar and others where involved in endless bitter war for the Throne of Shahanshah. Even Persian history changed to the point that Jamshid and his son Tur would be believed to be fathers of all Turks (as in Pan-Turanism - in fact invention of Persian court poerts and philosophers) - see Minorsky and his works on Iran and Caucasica. This opinion exists outside or Iran; those who voiced it inside Iran were jailed, killed and tortured (Chehregani). In short - I support the second opinion, I strongly believe Manoucher (If I am wrong, I will personally apologize before him and his supporters), Farrokh and others support the first. There is no shame in disagreement, but I think the community should read Manoucher's book, just as everything written by me, knowing that there is a fundamental split in opinions and two rather opposite views on Persian military and Persian history. Finally - I am no expert on Persia or weapons, so treat everything I say with a pound of salt . Last edited by Rivkin; 23rd September 2006 at 06:07 PM.